[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4F1F26CC.4040109@fb.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 13:46:52 -0800
From: Arun Sharma <asharma@...com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
CC: <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...radead.org>,
Andrew Vagin <avagin@...nvz.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] trace: reset sleep/block start time on task switch
On 1/24/12 6:27 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Bah, you're right. Also yes your proposal is too intrusive, but that can
> be fixed, I actually did, but then I noticed its broken too, it doesn't
> matter if the schedule that schedules a task back in preempted another
> task or not, what matters is if the task we're scheduling back in was
> itself preempted or recently woken. And we simply don't know.
Yes - we'd need an extra bit in the task_struct to do this right.
> I'm tempted to revert 1ac9bc69 for now, userspace will simply have to
> correlate trace_sched_switch() and trace_sched_stat_{sleep,blocked}(),
> which shouldn't be too hard.
We tried it and it didn't work very well. Especially when used with perf
record -g. There are too many uninteresting trace_sched_switch() events.
Other possibilites: make a copy of {sleep,block}_start somewhere else in
the perf_events subsystem in the sleep/wakeup path and leave
sched_statistics untouched.
-Arun
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists